Note: This is a public test instance of Red Hat Bugzilla. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback at bugzilla.redhat.com.
Bug 2010597
| Summary: | Fedora's Flatpak Evolution not using custom evolution-data-server build | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | joachim |
| Component: | evolution | Assignee: | Milan Crha <mcrha> |
| Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | unspecified | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | unspecified | ||
| Version: | 34 | CC: | andy, caillon+fedoraproject, klember, lucilanga, mail, mcrha, rlocke, rstrode, sandmann, steve |
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | x86_64 | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | evolution-stable-3520211005123811.1 | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2021-10-13 20:43:53 UTC | Type: | Bug |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
| Bug Depends On: | 2010608 | ||
| Bug Blocks: | |||
|
Description
joachim
2021-10-05 06:38:06 UTC
Thanks for a bug report. It looks like there's some problem with the evolution-source-registry process. Could you: $ ps ax | grep evolution to see what processes are running before you run Evolution and then do the same after you run Evolution, please? By the way, is there any particular reason why you use the Flatpak version, instead of the RPM version? The Flatpak version has many limitations, including no data sharing with the system/desktop. Never mind, I can reproduce it too. There failed to run the required processes from the evolution-data-server for some reason. Thanks for the fast reply, before evolution start: ps ax | grep evolution 1972 ? Ssl 0:00 /usr/libexec/evolution-source-registry 2011 ? Ssl 0:00 /usr/libexec/evolution-calendar-factory 2062 ? Ssl 0:00 /usr/libexec/evolution-addressbook-factory 2238 ? Sl 0:00 /usr/libexec/evolution-data-server/evolution-alarm-notify evolution running: 1972 ? Ssl 0:00 /usr/libexec/evolution-source-registry 2011 ? Ssl 0:00 /usr/libexec/evolution-calendar-factory 2062 ? Ssl 0:00 /usr/libexec/evolution-addressbook-factory 2238 ? Sl 0:00 /usr/libexec/evolution-data-server/evolution-alarm-notify 3358 ? S 0:00 bwrap --args 34 evolution -c current 3369 ? S 0:00 bwrap --args 34 evolution -c current 3370 ? S 0:00 /usr/bin/bash /app/bin/evolution -c current 3419 ? SLl 0:03 /app/bin/evolution.bin -c current evolution stopped again: 1972 ? Ssl 0:00 /usr/libexec/evolution-source-registry 2011 ? Ssl 0:00 /usr/libexec/evolution-calendar-factory 2062 ? Ssl 0:00 /usr/libexec/evolution-addressbook-factory 2238 ? Sl 0:00 /usr/libexec/evolution-data-server/evolution-alarm-notify I wondered too about the flatpak version, maybe it was done by the fedora installer? Both are upgrade installs I realized there failed something in the build of the Fedora Flatpak version. The evolution-data-server processes are meant to have a special D-Bus name, different from the system, but they do not have it now. I'll open a ticket there (once I figure out where it is). With respect of the Flatpak version being installed, it depends where you installed it. Being it in GNOME Software, then it can sometimes preselect the Flatpak version, instead of the RPM version, and it can be unnoticed by the users. The source can be changed in the upper-right corner. Ideally uninstall the Flatpak version and then install the RPM version. If you want to preserver the accounts and data from the Flatpak version (I understood you had there configured something), then you can move it to the corresponding directories from the ~/.var/app/org.gnome.Evolution/ to the directories as described here: https://help.gnome.org/users/evolution/stable/data-storage.html Thanks a lot, i'll switch to the RPM version. Although someone should use the Flatpak version to hunt the bugs, maybe i keep one with Flatpak evolution ;) Thanks I opened bug #2010608 for the investigation. I'll left this one open, as the evolution in Fedora's Flatpak will need a rebuild once the things are fixed. (Note the Flathub's Flatpak is not affected by this.) FEDORA-FLATPAK-2021-c6503004da has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35 Flatpaks. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-FLATPAK-2021-c6503004da FEDORA-FLATPAK-2021-c6503004da has been pushed to the Fedora 35 Flatpaks testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-FLATPAK-2021-c6503004da See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. Will this also be pushed to Fedora 34? Ditto the comment about pushing this to Fedora 34 - the bug will break any Evolution installs performed by the Fedora upgrade process. I'm wondering how you all has got to the Flatpak version. You should rather use the RPM version (see the comments near the top). (In reply to Robert Locke from comment #9) > Will this also be pushed to Fedora 34? Yes. Fedora flatpaks don't have separate streams for Fedora 34 and Fedora 35: there is a single stream called "stable" that everybody gets updates from (no matter what Fedora version they are on). So even though the message above says that it's for Fedora 35, that's untrue; it's for all Fedora releases. It's just based on Fedora 35 flatpak runtime (libraries). (In reply to Milan Crha from comment #11) > I'm wondering how you all has got to the Flatpak version. You should rather > use the RPM version (see the comments near the top). An interesting question - I honestly don't know. Consulting my notes, I did a clean install for Fedora 33 but Fedora 34 was an online upgrade using the "Software" app. I backup my email using an rsync of the data directories and at some stage I noted they had changed from .local/share to .var/app but I wasn't aware why and can't remember exactly when that occurred. This looks a bit of a mess and having two instantiations of the same software saving data in different places isn't very clever. I assume there's some Gnomic reason for that but I'm not going to dig further. I've got my lost email folders back by booting from an old Fedora 33 system disk. I've exported them using Evolution and will now install the rpm version on Fedora 34 and import back again. Fingers crossed! (In reply to Andy Michael from comment #13) > I backup my email using an rsync of the data directories and at some stage > I noted they had changed from .local/share to .var/app but I wasn't aware why > and can't remember exactly when that occurred. That's pity. The upgrade process should not "switch" from the RPM version to the module version, that would be rather unfortunate. Even if happened, the data between the tow versions are snot shared, you might enter everything from scratch. One way I can think of, is when users (re-)install the application in the GNOME Software. It can sometimes pick the Flatpak application instead of the RPM application when looking on the application details and this is easily overlooked. It happened to me too, but I noticed it quite soon. As the data is not shared, moving between the two versions is easy. > This looks a bit of a mess and having two instantiations > of the same software saving data in different places isn't very clever. Strictly speaking, it's not the same software. The ~/.var/app/... is used by Flatpak apps, which run in an isolated sandbox, they do not have access to the host machine's ~/.local|.config|.cache , unless enabled by the developer. The Flatpak application can be of a much newer version than the one on the host system, thanks to the isolation. Ah - I hadn't realised that. Anyway, all sorted now bar some minor tidying up - many thanks! :-) *** Bug 2011466 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** For what it's worth, the simplest way I found to solve this issue was to install version 3.42.0 from the flathub repo. https://forums.fedoraforum.org/showthread.php?327168-Evolution-lost-settings&p=1853217#post1853217 Cheers, Guillaume FEDORA-FLATPAK-2021-c6503004da has been pushed to the Fedora 35 Flatpaks stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report. |